Kenneth Harrisson spent about $1,000 on the doll. He opted for the deluxe package, with the make-up and the little, child-size lingerie. The doll had no breasts and no hips. When assembled, it would only stand about four-feet tall. It was obviously meant to be a child, a Crown prosecutor told a Newfoundland court Tuesday, and Harrisson bought it for one obvious reason: sex. And for that, the prosecutor argued, he should be convicted and locked away.

Harrisson’s case, which has stretched on for six years and sparked a heated debate about the Canadian definition of pornography, wound to a close in St. John’s Tuesday. Harrisson was arrested in 2013 after customs officials intercepted a package containing the unassembled doll in Toronto, where it arrived en route from Japan. He was charged with possessing child pornography, mailing obscene matter, and two charges under the federal Customs Act of smuggling and possession of prohibited goods.

Newfoundland Provincial Court Judge Mark Pike heard closing arguments from both Harrisson’s lawyer, Bob Buckingham, and a team of Crown prosecutors Tuesday. Pike told the court Harrisson’s innocence or guilt will hinge on whether he knew the Japanese doll was designed to resemble a child. But regardless of the verdict, the Harrisson case is set to live on — as a test case for an emerging field of AI obscenity law, and as an example of what some in Canada believe is a grossly overbroad statute on child pornography.

“Do I find it icky, for lack of a better word,” said Cara Zwibel, the director of the Fundamental Freedoms Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. “Yeah, I find it icky. Does that mean it should be the subject of criminal law?” That’s a much harder question to answer. “I’m not sure as a matter of public policy we want to criminalize behaviour by someone who may be trying to cope with inappropriate urges,” but isn’t harming or participating in the harm of any actual, human victims, Zwibel said.

The issue of how to treat child sex dolls in the law has been cropping up all over the world. In the U.K., more than 120 child-like sex dolls were seized by police between March 2016 and July 2017 in a sting dubbed “Operation Shiraz.” In the United States, the “CREEPER” (Curbing Realistic Exploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots) Act passed the House of Representatives in 2018. The act would ban the importation or transportation of any “anatomically-correct doll, mannequin, or robot, with the features of, or with features that resemble those of, a minor, intended for use in sexual acts.”

In Canada, more than 40 child-like sex dolls were seized at the border between January 2016 and August 2018, according to information obtained from the Canada Border Services Agency by the CBC.

The charge sparks coverage which does the exact opposite of what the law is supposed to do, which is to discourage and stigmatize pedophilia

For all that action, though, there remains very little evidence of the actual harms caused by child sex dolls. Almost no studies have empirically examined the implications of their use, according to a meta-analysis prepared by the Australian Institute of Criminology in March 2018. However, based on related studies, researchers worry that the dolls could lead to a kind of escalation — users attracted to children might start with a doll and then move on to pictures or videos of an actual child or even assault a child themselves. “It may also desensitize the user from the potential harm that child sexual assault causes, given that such dolls give no emotional feedback,” the authors of the meta-analysis wrote.

Others, however, believe that under the right circumstances, the dolls, and other related technologies, might even have some social utility. “It is possible that virtual child pornography content and other simulations such as child sex dolls or robots might be a safer outlet for at least some individuals who are sexually attracted to children,” Michael Seto, director of the Forensic Research Unit at the Royal’s Institute of Mental Health Research in Ottawa told the New Scientist in 2016.

Megan Ross, a PhD candidate in law at the University of Toronto who studies obscenity laws, thinks that entire debate misses the point. She views the Harrisson prosecution as grossly counterproductive. “The charge sparks coverage which does the exact opposite of what the law is supposed to do,” Ross said, “which is to discourage and stigmatize pedophilia.” Ross believes that by charging Harrisson, prosecutors have likely only increased interest in child sex dolls. “Some of the articles (about the case) are actually directing readers to the company that makes these dolls,” she said.

As for Harrisson himself, he has always denied any sexual interest in the doll he bought. He claimed on the stand that he bought it for companionship; he lost his infant son to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in the 1980s and he wanted the doll, he said, as a kind of stand in or reminder. He told the court he chose to buy a sex doll for its lifelike qualities and said he always intended to dress it in male clothing. Under cross-examination last week, he collapsed and had to be removed by paramedics from the court.

In their closing arguments, prosecutors urged the Justice Pike to dismiss Harrisson’s defence as “hollow” and nonsensical, according to Renell LeGrow, a reporter from VOCM News who was in the courtroom Tuesday. “(I)t’s unusual, the evidence that we heard,” prosecutor Dana Sullivan said, according to LeGrow. “I just don’t think his evidence is credible.”

When my assistant said there was a call from the White House, I picked up, said 'Hello' and started to ask if this was a prank

This Week's Flyers

Comments

Postmedia is pleased to bring you a new commenting experience. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. Visit our community guidelines for more information.